rudyardk's Reviews

From Cleveland (1980 TV Movie)

5/10

3 December 2023

After SCTV was (as it turns out, temporarily) cancelled in 1979, a different set of producers hired several SCTV cast members along with Bob & Ray to work in a new sketch comedy pilot.

Whoah! Bob and Ray and SCTV? This sounds like a dream team match-up!

It is -- but the show's concept, such as it is, kind of lets the performers down. (The concept is "let's throw some sketches together, and hope that filming it in Cleveland works as a link.") Bob & Ray's material is also very obviously filmed totally separately from the rest of the show; they never interact with the SCTV cast.

As well, some of the sketch work is deadeningly slow, and none of it ever catches fire. For SCTV fans, a toned-down Edith Prickley -- NOT in leopard skin -- makes an appearance, as does Dave Thomas's Bob Hope; both are mildly amusing. In fact, everyone in the SCTV cast has at least a couple of worthwhile sequences, and it's always fun to see Bob and Ray at work. (They don't act as such, they simply do their radio schtick on camera in a radio studio.)

So, sure, if you're a fan of any of the cast, go and check this show out on YouTube. But be warned -- right from the tortuously inert (and eminently skippable) cold opening, which drags on for two full minutes, there's almost no momentum to any of the show. While there are a few bits here and there that work, unfortunately, nothing really gels as a whole. It's very easy to understand why this pilot was passed on, and why SCTV was resurrected .... SCTV was much funnier, faster and sharper.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Alcoa Premiere: Mr. Lucifer (1962)

Season 2, Episode 5

7/10

Fun little devil-tries-to-tempt-man's soul story

25 April 2022

The actual story itself is not especially innovative -- the devil tries to corrupt a goody-goody straight-arrow architect. You've seen it before in numerous variations. But the touches of light humour make "Mr. Lucifer" an agreeable viewing experience.

In particular, Fred Astaire has a fine time playing Mr. Lucifer and his earthly alter egos: a klutzy train passenger, a bellowing Texas oil investor, a comic Italian plumber, a suave bartender, and an eccentric French yacht enthusiast. He's delightful in all his incarnations. Elizabeth Montgomery as impish moon goddess Hecate is equally delightful in her various guises, including a sultry secretary, a brainy Radcliffe grad, and a bikini-clad French sexpot -- all out to seduce our hero.

Debits: the two lead performances (and some fine work by Joyce Bulifant, George Petrie and Hal Smith in smaller supporting roles) overwhelm Frank Aletter, who barely registers in the central role of the architect whose soul is being battled for. And the 'twist' ending is a bit of a prosaic letdown. But it's really Lucifer's story anyway, so these are comparatively minor flaws.

Bottom line? If you're a fan of Astaire and/or Montgomery, "Mr. Lucifer" is a fun fifty-minute romp that's worth checking out. It isn't -- and wasn't intended to be -- their definitive work, but it DOES give both actors a chance to show some good comic range and an awful lot of charm. Approach it in that spirit, and enjoy!

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Rockford Files: South by Southeast (1978)

Season 4, Episode 18

5/10

Not one of Rockford's best

20 May 2019

"South By Southeast" is definitely a below-average Rockford, bearing all the hallmarks of an episode churned out in an exhausted frenzy as the production season neared its end.

For the second episode in a row, Jim is mistaken for someone else, thereby launching him into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, the reason behind the mistaken identity is particularly contrived this time around. Even worse, everything that happens to get Jim over the border (in order to get the story running) is clearly the work of a desperate scriptwriter hoping that by keeping things moving, the gargantuan plot holes don't become too obvious. Surprisingly, this is a Juanita Bartlett episode, which makes it particularly shocking -- she's usually pretty solid at plot mechanics.

Of course, Juanita's also good at character and dialogue, and there are some absorbing moments in the episode when Jim deals with a spoiled-but-sympathetic heiress. However, the rest of the cast barely registers, and everyone in this story behaves pretty stupidly pretty much all of the time. In particular, the villain of the piece has an especially dumb and transparent criminal plan he's trying to execute.

Is the end result of all this terrible? No. But "South By Southeast" only gets as far as it does on the appeal of James Garner, and a fairly good performance from Dorrie Kavanaugh. For a lesser P.I. series -- Simon & Simon, say -- this would merely be a mediocre episode. But for The Rockford Files? It's quite frankly a disappointment.

8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Peeping Times (1978 TV Movie)

7/10

Early work by (amongst others) Christopher Guest, David Letterman and Barry Levinson.

6 August 2017

"Peeping Times" is a sporadically amusing mock-news magazine show that originally aired in January 1978. Ultimately, it's probably more notable for the talent involved than for the finished product, which is uneven -- but it has its moments.

On-screen, this is a very early credit for a young David Letterman, as one of the two hosts. He's clearly already got his deadpan snarky comic persona down cold, and acquits himself well, even though he's not always given terribly funny material.

The 7-man writing staff includes 6 veterans of The Carol Burnett Show, including later acclaimed film writer/director Barry Levinson. The one 'ringer' is newbie Christopher Guest, here getting his feet wet in the mockumentary format that would eventually become his stock in trade. Unfortunately, you can often see the sketch comedy mentality at work in "Peeping Times"; a comic idea is introduced and played out (sometimes past the point of diminishing comedic return), then it's on to the next one. There's very little momentum in the show, and some of the pieces just go on too long (and/or are based on tired premises). However, there are individual moments that work well, and the cast is uniformly fine.

For fans of 70s/80s TV and film, there are LOTS of bits by some great character comic actors: Barney Miller fans will recognize frequent guests J.J. Barry, Philip Bruns, Peggy Pope and of course Ron Carey; Mel Brooks has an extended cameo; even if you don't know the names, you're sure to recognize the great Richard Libertini, Richard Stahl and Larry Hankin; and *real* devotees will recognize the always-reliable character comedy work of Royce Applegate, Lewis Arquette, Valerie Curtin, Murphy Dunne, Michael Fairman, Alan Oppenheimer, and Julie Payne. Oh, and yes -- that's an uncredited James Cromwell playing the film archivist!

Overall, "Peeping Times" is worth a peek as an historical curiosity, especially if you're a fan of Letterman, Guest, or late-70s "alternative" comedy in general. It's not quite as good as it could have or should have been, but it's an interesting early starting point for some real talent.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Rockford Files: Irving the Explainer (1977)

Season 4, Episode 8

4/10

Extremely sub-par Rockford

3 May 2016

Warning: Spoilers

There are very few Rockford Files clunkers -- it was an extraordinarily consistent series that almost always operated at a high level. But David Chase is responsible for two of Rockford's rare bad episodes: this, and the supremely unentertaining back-door pilot "Just A Coupla Guys".

With this episode, Chase tries to fashion a convoluted mystery with echoes of The Maltese Falcon, in that everyone is looking for an ancient priceless art object that may not actually exist. But the convolutions are piled on arbitrarily, and what's meant to be clever is simply tedious. There is no sense that any character is behaving like a real human being; everyone just ping-pongs from one scene to the next, asking questions or expressing confusion because that's what the script tells them to do. As well, much of the story is described rather than seen, as characters endlessly rehash the events of 30-40 years ago that set Rockford's current case in motion.

Even the actors seem bored by all the exposition. Garner tries to compensate by uncharacteristically over-emoting at times, but this simply makes the episode even more cringeworthy. (Hard to know whether to blame Garner or director James Coburn for this, although it may be telling that this is Coburn's only directorial credit *ever*.) James Luisi is wasted, and then completely forgotten about, as he asks questions for a while then disappears. Later, Jim inexplicably hires an assistant (who is getting her "doctorate in logic" from UCLA) to help him sort through the case details ... though how he can afford to pay her is unclear, and why on earth he sets her up at Rocky's house (without even asking Rocky) is similarly unclear. Played by Irene Tsu, she ends up adding nothing to the story anyway. And as Jim's client, Barbara Babcock does what she can with a character whose backstory turns out to be absurdly unbelievable.

Worst of all, especially for an episode that starts well then begins sliding after the first few minutes, is the final scene where Irving The Explainer comes along to explain what really happened. This scene is poorly acted, anti-climactic and even a little stupid. It simply doesn't work, and the "punchline" (SPOILER ALERT: Irving confesses, then promptly dies -- sudden freeze frame and cut to credits) is perhaps the episode's nadir.

David Chase would write good scripts both before and after this episode ... in fact, "Quickie Nirvana" was an excellent Chase-penned script that went to air just the week before this one. But "Irving The Explainer" was an episode that bit off WAY more than it could chew, and is mostly a chore to watch.

12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nichols (1971–1972)

6/10

Fondly remembered show doesn't hold up

27 February 2016

Nichols was essentially unseen for 40+ years or so -- and the vast majority of reviews on IMDb are from those years, with people fondly remembering the show they watched back in 1971/72 but hadn't actually viewed in decades.

Now that it's out on DVD? If you watch, it still might raise a grin or two on occasion -- but looked at dispassionately, without the warm glow of nostalgia, this is awfully thin beer. Nichols veers uncomfortably between (sometimes) ver-r-r-y broad Western humour and ham-fisted attempts at social relevancy. As well, the supporting cast is mostly a series of one-note caricatures that are usually very funny at first, but fail to develop or grow, and the plots and writing are often slapdash.

The pilot is probably the show's strongest episode -- it's funny, and has heart. (Although most modern audiences will rightly react poorly to a very peculiar scene dropped into the middle, in which Nichols goes on a weirdly sexist rant.) After that? Nichols becomes mired in a somewhat predictable rut.

So far from tuning out because Nichols wasn't Maverick, or because the lead character wasn't a traditional hero, it's pretty easy to see that the audiences of '71/'72 tuned out because Nichols just wasn't that good a show. It wasn't *terrible*, mind you, and had its moments...but it was certainly no classic, then or now. The charismatic performances were much stronger than the material, and the warm feelings audiences had for James Garner, Stuart Margolin and Margot Kidder are probably what kept this show alive in the minds of its fans.

Garner and Margolin did much better with their next series, The Rockford Files, which featured much sharper writing. Too bad Kidder didn't show up there too!

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Rockford Files: This Case Is Closed (1974)

Season 1, Episode 6

3/10

This Case Is Ruined -- by an excruciatingly padded re-edit

7 October 2015

Originally aired as a ninety minute presentation, the only print of this episode now available seems to be a version prepared for syndication, which re-edits the material into two one-hour episodes. This means that an extra 25 minutes of footage was needed to fill the new running time...and here's (roughly) how it breaks down:

An extra opening and closing theme eats up 90 seconds.

There's a brief episode 2 preview at the end of episode 1, lasting maybe a minute.

There's a seven-minute recap of episode 1 at the beginning of episode 2.

Even with the recap, the closing scene of episode 1 (with Rocky and Jim) is partially repeated (though edited) in the opening moments of episode 2. Another minute gobbled up.

Every single time any character goes somewhere by car (which happens a LOT in this episode), we are treated to long, loving stock footage recreations of their journey. Shots are reused and repeated frequently, in order to lengthen the on-screen travel time; it doesn't take too much skill to notice cars going around the same corner again and again. This footage of cars essentially driving in circles takes up a good ten or more minutes of screen time.

Stock footage of a plane landing is seen twice. Another minute or so.

Any time someone retrieves information via computer? Long, tedious footage of whirring 1970s computers and/or punch cards are shown. Another precious 30 seconds added.

When we see the Federal building, we then see pointless stock footage of office workers inside, stretching things for maybe another 15 seconds

Most egregiously, three short, completely disposable (and poorly-acted) scenes are ineptly added in. All three scenes are shot so that no character is seen on-screen, even though dialogue is spoken. The first of these scenes has a police lieutenant giving orders to a subordinate (heard over an interoffice talk-box). The second "extra" scene features some particularly terrible voice actors talking about the results of a fire, over much stock footage of ambulances at a night-time crime scene. And the third added scene is -- against all odds -- an even bigger waste of time, with characters in The Federal Buliding discussing Rockford's arrival, again over an intercom. All told, maybe another two minutes here.

That's a grand total of 25 minutes of momentum-destroying footage that makes this two-part episode almost unwatchable. Mind you, there's a good story under all this mess, and some scenes with James Garner and Joseph Cotten that really crackle. (Sharon Gless is very good, too.) But the utterly maddening padding just never lets up; a full quarter of this two-part episode is made up of boring, repetitive, inept, and/or redundant footage, and it just kills any momentum dead.

Why Bernard Kowalski agreed to keep his name on this re-edited farce is beyond me. If ever something called out for an Allen Smithee credit? This two-part hatchet job is it.

25 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Taxi: Tony and Brian (1980)

Season 2, Episode 16

4/10

A rare Taxi clunker

22 March 2015

Warning: Spoilers

This might just be Taxi's worst episode, as it centres around an unbelievable premise and a fairly unappealing central character.

The set-up? Brian Sims, who was introduced in the previous episode, is a nine-year-old orphan who pals around with Tony. Though in the previous episode he was in a wheelchair, Brian can now magically walk with no explanation as to how this miracle occurred. Brian is also a child who comes off as obnoxious, phony and charmless, although everyone in this episode unaccountably seems thoroughly enamoured of him. (The actor playing him, Tony Danza's son Marc, isn't entirely responsible for this obnoxiousness -- though Marc's not a first-rate talent, it's really the script and direction that let him down.)

In any event, Brian is on the lookout for a rich family to adopt him, and wouldn't you know it, he finds one...just as Tony is preparing to ask Brian if HE can adopt him. Tony, of course, is crushed that Brian will go to another family, but if the episode had ended on that note, it might have been an okay instalment of the show (not great, or even good, but okay.) However, the episode continues on to a completely unrealistic ending: for some reason, Brian leaves his new family for Tony. The episode ends with the indication that Tony will adopt Brian, but Brian is (thankfully) never seen, heard from or mentioned on the show ever again. Overall, "Tony And Brian" has all the earmarks of an episode the writers wanted to forget ever existed and retcon right out of existence.

The episode does have one genuinely hilarious bit involving Christopher Lloyd -- he only appears in one scene, but gets maximum mileage out of it. That's about it though...once you've seen that scene, do yourself a favour and skip the rest of the episode.

9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Our Hero (2000–2002)

7/10

Funny, sometimes charming, but a word of warning...

6 August 2014

"Our Hero" is an often funny, sweet-natured teen series that has a goofy charm. The 'zine hook is somewhat precious (and now definitely dated), but it isn't especially crucial to enjoying the show. However, Cara Pifko, though a delightful actress, is far too old for the lead role -- she was in her mid-twenties when this was filmed, and is unsuccessful trying to play about ten years younger. A few other "teen" actors also appear to be in their mid-to-late twenties: one semi- regular 'older' boyfriend was over thirty (unconvincingly playing twenty) making some scenes unintentionally creepy. But if you can avoid his episodes, and get past the idea of 26-year-olds still somehow being in high school, there's a solidly-written show here.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jack and the Beanstalk (1999 Video)

3/10

What a waste!

14 July 2014

This video simply fails to engage the intended audience. A big problem is the amateurish songs, which are extremely clunky lyrically and utterly unmemorable musically -- they simply stop everything dead whenever they appear. Not that things were zipping along prior to their appearance, mind you: the story meanders and loses focus, the action sequences are badly structured, and none of the characters engender warmth (Dilly comes closest). The voice actors give it a brave go, and some of the animation is okay, but this is overall a sodden, lumpy mess in desperate need of an actual screenwriter (and a professional songwriter). Tellingly, the writer/director and the co-writer of this piece never worked in the industry again.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Satisfaction (2013)

3/10

Poor on all fronts

22 July 2013

If it's hard to single out where "Satisfaction" goes wrong, that's only because it goes wrong in so many ways...

Writing: Generic. There's not a single original idea to be had, nor a single memorable character.

Casting: Basically at the level of a student film. It seems as if a dozen people showed up for the auditions, so they were simply cast in the dozen roles that were available.

Direction: At best pedestrian, and certainly not tuned to the rhythms of actual human interaction.

Production: The show looks (and feels) cheap and rushed. For all the producers, executives and consultants listed in the credits, and all the funding and tax credits the Canadian government seems to have given them, one can only wonder where the money actually went. The only sensible assumption is that the credited execs paid themselves handsomely, leaving little money left over for the finished on-screen product.

In short -- this is bad. Elsewhere in the world, it wouldn't even be a series: the pilot would simply be put in a vault, never to be shown in public. Here in Canada, production money has been spent, and Canadian content regulations must be filled, so "Satisfaction" gets a series order.

A SMALL series order, mind you, and one that will be run off in the summer, far, far away from sweeps week. After all, the people that greenlit this series may be buffoons ... but they're not complete idiots.

35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mary and Rhoda (2000 TV Movie)

2/10

Audience goodwill can't overcome terrible, hacky script

26 April 2012

An utter, utter disappointment -- clearly, no-one involved with this production had any idea about what made the original MTM series work. After a moderately amusing update of the MTM show theme by Joan Jett, the film goes immediately downhill, with one witless, dull scene following another. Stars Moore and Harper try hard, but are completely at sea when faced with pedestrian direction, a bland, unmemorable supporting cast, and -- worst of all -- a truly awful script by one Katie Ford. Sadly, Ford seems to think she's writing the reunion movie "Lucy and Ethel", and apparently has been told to 'make it clichéd and dramatic ... but not too dramatic'.

Tellingly, not a single person from the original 70s classic series (aside from the two lead actresses) had any involvement with this reunion. James L. Brooks and Allan Burns don't even get credited for creating the original characters! Of course, looking at the finished product, it's entirely possible they petitioned to have their names removed from this film. If so, they made the right decision.

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jake and Jill (2001– )

2/10

A legendary stinker

16 April 2003

Yet another attempt at a Canadian sitcom, this one centred around two rather dull and self-absorbed Toronto yuppies in the throes of mid-life crisis. Actually, 'centred around' doesn't begin to cover it -- Jake and Jill are the only two characters we ever see. Shame, then, that they're so unlikable, smug and unfunny. This sat on a shelf at CBC for several years before being sneaked on the air as summer filler in 2001, and even then it was pre-empted several times during its very short run.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mary (1978– )

A failed experiment

26 March 2003

After great success in sitcoms, Mary Tyler Moore tried something a little different with this variety series that was very obviously inspired by the Carol Burnett Show. Unfortunately, the polished-but-old-fashioned song-and-dance numbers and the often cornball sketch comedy was out of step with the times -- post Saturday Night Live, 'Mary' looked very out of date. (Although it should be said that Mary herself was in great shape and looked terrific in the dance numbers.) As well, a certain element of hipness was provided by sketch comedy regulars David Letterman, Michael Keaton and Swoosie Kurtz; however, the too-infrequent glimpses of their edgier brand of humour severely clashed with the generally conservative nature of the rest of the show. Not surprisingly, the whole uneasy mess only lasted a few weeks on the air.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Muse (1999)

7/10

Light, frothy fun

5 March 2002

Stone is surprisingly funny as the completely self-absorbed title character. Who knew she could do comedy so well? Also, a very funny cameo from Steven Wright, and some very quotable lines from writers Brooks and Johnson. Lots of great in-jokes, so add a point or two to the IMDb users rating if you're actually in the biz.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Magnolia (1999)

5/10

Needed an editor -- a script editor

8 July 2000

Some wonderful actors, a handful of great moments, but nowhere near as brilliant as it would like to be (or thinks it is). It's difficult to dismiss entirely, because there are some genuinely talented people at work here -- William H. Macy, for instance, could read binary code and make it interesting. But before a frame of film was shot, somebody should have made P.T. Anderson understand that his script was nearly twice as long as the material merited. High school sophomores will no doubt be dazzled by the obvious symbolism and superficial "complexity" of the characters; the rest of us will recognize "Magnolia" as a largely self-indulgent misfire.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Punch and Judy Man (1963)

Sad, strange little film is a must for Hancock buffs.

27 November 1999

A more serious effort from the star of the classic sitcom "Hancock's Half Hour". The boastful exuberance of his radio and TV days has been toned down.

Roundly panned at the time of release, the film looks better (though not perfect) today. "The Punch And Judy Man" sometimes stumbles in its attempts to play off scenes of gentle whimsy with those designed to show the lead character's life of quiet desperation, but the attempt to place Hancock's familiar persona in a more realistic (even somewhat grim) setting will be of interest to devotees of the lad from East Cheam.

21 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Foolish Heart (1999)

Handsomely directed, well-acted, pretentiously scripted.

12 September 1999

"Foolish Heart" is a handsomely directed, well-acted, but pretentiously scripted series of interconnected stories about love and betrayal. Among the highlights are performances by Sarah Strange (in a dual role as two very different cynical writers) and Arsinee Khanjian (as an Armenian cleaning woman trying to keep her son out of jail). As well, the very talented Patricia O'Callaghan gets to sing several great cabaret-style numbers, including the title song.

Unfortunately, writer/director/star Ken Finkleman seems to be labouring under the delusion that if his characters talk endlessly about Chekhov, his script will itself be on a Chekhovian plane. Accordingly, Finkleman drops in more references to Great Dead Intellectual Authors in a single half-hour episode than Woody Allen would able to shoehorn into his next five films. Finkleman then desperately tries to make his script "critic-proof" by having characters continually accuse Finkleman's writer/director character of writing that is hackneyed, pretentious and naive; Finkleman's responses are meant to enlighten us to the fact that what we are watching is Art, dammit, and that anyone who disagrees is clearly a vulgarian. "Gosh, Ken," we're meant to say, "you're an intellectual guy who's read Tolstoy -- how could anyone possibly disagree with your artistic opinion?"

Well, I've read Tolstoy, too, and ultimately, despite several worthwhile moments, "Foolish Heart" stops well short of being "War and Peace". Finkleman spends more time trying to fend off his detractors than he does in creating his Art, and the show quickly devolves into a talky, self-referential mess. If you want my advice, Ken, next time answer your critics by creating material that involves as well as enlightens, and that's universal as well as personal. Sure it's difficult...but if you go back and re-read Tolstoy, Chekhov and all the other Great Dead Intellectual Authors, they'll show you how to go about it.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Once a Thief (1996–1998)

Don't Bother

21 August 1999

A sad case of a series being created to cash in on a name. John Woo had very little to do with "John Woo's Once A Thief"; he certainly didn't direct any of the episodes. Consequently, the action sequences one might expect from a John Woo project were lacking -- which is actually no surprise considering the constraints of a television shooting schedule. However, it was the writing of the show that was the real villain. Viewers got treated to the worst features of lowbrow action flicks (shallow characters, absurd dialogue, implausible situations, leaden pacing), and none of the compensatory strengths (a sense of humour about it all).

Towards the end of the series, the writing got a little better, and a couple of episodes were almost passably entertaining in a campy sort of way. But it was too little, too late, and the series mercifully came to an end after 22 episodes.

6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

rudyardk

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed